Karnataka High Court
M Sanjaykumar vs Karnataka Information Commission on 11 August, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION NO.54186 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
Between:
M. Sanjaykumar
S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 40 years
R/at. No.18, 1st Floor
13th Cross, Cholarapalya
Magadi Road, Bangalore-560023.
... Petitioner
(By Mr. Shivananda D.S., Advocate)
And:
1. Karnataka Information Commission
No.337, 2nd Gate, 3rd Floor
M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560001
Rep. by its Secretary.
2. Bangalore Raju Venkatesh Prasanna
Father's name not know to the petitioner
Aged about 42 years
No.680, 11th B Main Road
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010.
... Respondents
(By Ms. Kalyani Agarwal, for
Mr. G.B. Sharath Gowda, Advocate for R1
Mr. Bangalore Raju Venkatesh Prasanna,
Respondent No.2 - Party-in-person)
****
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016
M. Sanjaykumar Vs.
Karnataka Information Commission and another
2/16
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing
the order dated 22-9-2016 passed in No.KIC/1966/APL/2014 by
the full bench of the Hon'ble Karnataka Information Commission
vide Annexure-A, in the interest of the justice and equity & et.
This writ petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Mr. Shivananda D.S. Advocate for petitioner Ms. Kalyani Agarwal, for Mr. G.B. Sharath Gowda, Adv.for R-1;
Mr. Bangalore Raju Venkatesh Prasanna - Respondent-Party-in-person - present
1. Mr. M. Sanjay Kumar, one of the 27 persons who approached the Karnataka Information Commission, Bengaluru in an Appeal filed by the Respondent, Mr.B.R.V. Prasanna, has filed this writ petition against the order passed by the Public Information Officer, BBMP, Central Officer, on 16/09/2015.
2. In the said Appeal, the 27 persons including the present petitioner, Mr. M. Sanjay Kumar sought their impleadment in the said Appeal claiming that they are persons interested and are Social Activists and therefore the Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 3/16 Appeal filed by the Respondent - Mr. B.R.V. Prasanna should be heard after impleading them.
3. The learned State Commission by its Full Bench of three Members rejected these impleading Applications by 27 Applicants giving the following reasons:
"10. A perusal of the RTI Act would indicate that Sec.18 of the Right to Information Act details out the powers of the civil court that may be exercised by the information Commission. Sec. 18(3) of the RTI Act deals with the applicability of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure to an RTI proceedings, which reads thus:
"The central Information Commission, state information commission, as the case may be shall while inquiring into any matter under this section have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely:-
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 4/16 a. Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the document or things;
b. Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; c. Receiving the evidence on affidavit;
d. Requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
e. Requisting summons for examination of witness or documents; & f. Any other matter which may be prescribed."
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 5/16 The reading of the above provision makes it clear that though the Commission is empowered to use the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is restricted. Though Sec.18(3) of the RTI Act empowers the Commission to use the powers of Civil Court, the same is restricted to stages that are contemplated under clause (a) to Clause (e) and also at any other stages if so authorized under any rules framed under clause (f). Clause
(a) to clause (e) does not empower the Commission to entertain an impleading application. Though the impleading applicants have sought to file this application under clause (1) of Rule 9 of Karnataka Right to Information Rules which reads thus:
"Rule 9(1): In deciding the appeal, the State Information Commission may-
a. Hear oral, or written evidence on oath or an affidavit from concerned or interested person."
11. A reading of Rule 9(1) would indicate that the Information Commission can hear oral, or written evidence or an affidavit from concerned or Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 6/16 interested person. The term concerned or interested person plays a vital role. RTI proceedings essentially is proceedings inter se between the applicant, Public Information Officer, Asst. Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority. Therefore all these persons are concerned or interested persons. If the term concerned or interested person is liberally interpreted, then the third parties as defined under Sec.7(7) and Sec.11 can also be termed a concerned or interested person provided any order that may be passed by the Commission affects the rights of those third parties in so far as the information sought under 6(1) application of the RTI Act is concerned. Therefore, any third parties whose interest is intrinsically involved in a lis proceedings become concerned or interested parties to the said proceedings.
12. All the time of addressing the arguments on the impleading applications, it is specifically contended by applicants that they are not interested in the dispute (Sec.6(1) application) interse between the Appellant and Respondent Public Information Officer. It is Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 7/16 further contended by the applicants that they apprehend that their rights might be affected in view of the orders passed by the learned single Commissioner and a reference being made to the full bench. It is for the sole reason that the impleading applications have been filed.
13. Even on the count whether the applicants herein are interested parties to the above appeal, it would be pertinent to note that the impleading applicants are not RTI applicants, Public information officer, Asst. Public Information Officer, First appellate authority or third parties as contemplated under Sec.11 of the RTI Act. Any orders that shall be passed by the Commission in this appeal will not affect the right and interest of impleading applicants since the reference made by the learned Information Commissioner is limited to the appellant's case before the Commission. As such they are not concerned or interested persons. In the case at hand, the learned Information Commissioner vide order dated 16.9.2015 has opined that the appellant has been filing hundreds of frivolous applications and also has been writing mails to the Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 8/16 learned Information Commissioner and thus has been interfering with the judicial process. Therefore he has directed the above appeal shall be placed before the Full Bench and till such time that the Full Bench passes an order or for a period 2 years, all proceedings filed by the appellant shall be kept in abeyance. The Commission has to hear the appeal on merits and it is only thereafter, the commission will render its decision. The order passed by the learned Single Commissioner is an order that is applicable only to the parties herein.
14. It would also be pertinent to keep in mind the decisions of the Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the Tribunals shall function well within their jurisdiction and that they shall not exercise powers that are not vested with them. From the provisions of RTI Act and Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the Commission is not vested with the powers to implead parties into any proceedings more so those who are not interested parties.
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 9/16
15. For the foregoing reasons the impleading applications filed by the applicants are neither maintainable nor the impleading applicants can be considered as interested parties in the above appeal. Accordingly, we pass the following ORDER The impleading applications filed by the applicants are hereby dismissed.
Dictated, corrected, signed and pronounced in the open Court, this 22nd September, 2016.
Sd/- sd/- sd/-
P.G. Vijay Kumar Shankar R. Patil D.N. Narasimha Raju State Information State Information State Chief Information Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner"
One of these 27 persons, viz. Mr. M. Sanjay Kumar has approached this Court by way of present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order.
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 10/16
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivananda D.S. has submitted that since the Respondent - Mr. B.R.V. Prasanna, an RTI Activist was misusing the process of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and had filed number of such Applications, the learned Commissioner was justified in referring the matter to the Full Bench of the State Commission and therefore in the Appeal filed by him against that order should be heard after allowing impleadment and intervention of the present petitioner, Mr. M. Sanjay Kumar and 26 others.
5. The learned counsel urged before the Court that the Information Commissioner has the powers of the Civil Court conferred upon him under Section 18(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Rule 9(1) of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005 which permits State Information Commissioner to hear oral or written evidence on oath or an Affidavit from the concerned or interested person.
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 11/16
6. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Full Bench of the State Commission was not justified in rejecting the impleading Applications of the Applicants including Mr. M. Sanjay Kumar, the present petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State Commission, Ms. Kalyani Agarwal, for Mr. G.B. Sharath Gowda, has vehemently submitted before the Court that the present petitioner and the 26 Applicants whose Applications have been rejected by the learned State Commission had no interest in the lis pending before the State Commission nor their rights are likely to be affected in any manner and except baldly claiming themselves to be Social Activists to oppose the RTI Applications filed by the Respondent, Mr. B.R.V. Prasanna, apparently there is no cause of action for them to seek impleadment before the State Commission.
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 12/16
8. The Respondent, MR. B.R.V. Prasanna is also present in the Court and has submitted before the Court that the impugned order passed by the learned Information Commissioner on 16/09/2015 consolidating all the Applications filed by the Respondent, which were around 361 in number has erred in doing so and referring the matter to Full Bench.
9. He has also vehemently opposed the present petition and has claimed that the present petitioner and all other 26 such Applicants had no business to interfere in the legal process under RTI Act, 2005 and it was for the Information Commissioner to either supply the desired information in accordance with the Act and Rules or to deny the same by giving a reasoned order, allowing the said Respondent to take further recourse in the matter.
10. Having heard the learned counsels and the Respondent/party-in-person, this Court is fully satisfied that Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 13/16 the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission on 22/09/2016, rejecting the impleading Applications of the present petitioner and other such 26 Applicants is perfectly justified and the same does not require any interference by this Court in the present writ petition.
11. The impleading Applicants including the present petitioner have not disclosed their any interest in the lis namely the substance of the Application filed by the Respondent, Mr.B.R.V. Prasanna who sought various information from the concerned Public 1nformation Officer of the BBMP in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is for the concerned Authority to either supply such information or deny the same by passing suitable order under the provisions of the said Act. The Act provides for further Appellate mechanism for redressal of the grievance of the persons concerned. The third party interference in such cases like the present petitioner and 26 Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 14/16 other Applicants is neither envisaged nor called for any such circumstances, under Rule 9 quoted above.
12. The contention raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they would support the case of the Public Information Officer while opposing the Applications filed by the Respondent, Mr B.R.V. Prasanna does not impress this Court at all. It is for the Public Authority, the designated Public Information Officer under the Act to comply with the provisions of the Act in true 'letter and spirit'. The very purpose of this Act is to make public disclosure of the information in the Government Offices so that the public at large can utilize the said information for their desired objectives and file necessary litigation against such Government Departments, if need be. This is obviously in accordance with the principles of Transparency which is required to be maintained in the Government Departments.
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 15/16
13. The avowed purpose of this Act is to make such disclosure and not to hide the information which is legally permissible to be given to the Applicants upon payment of prescribed fees and compliance with other conditions.
14. The right of the Public Information Officer under Rule 9 of the Right to Information Rules, 2005 to hear oral or written Evidence or examine any concerned third person does not confer any right on such third party like the present petitioner and other 26 other Applicants to seek their impleadment in the pending Appeals filed by the Respondent, RTI Activist as a matter of right. It is a discretion given to the said concerned Officer rather than conferring a right on the Applicants. The Applications filed for impleadment of the Applicants including the present petitioner was absolutely misconceived and therefore rightly rejected by the learned Full Bench of the State Information Commission.
Date of Order 11-08-2017 W.P.No.54186/2016 M. Sanjaykumar Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another 16/16
15. The present writ petition filed against that order is therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*